Re: Release plans for the GUI

[tilas]

Michael D Godfrey-2 wrote:
> 
> Well, actually, your view was missing.  Other users have other
> views.
Partially true. Indeed I expressed my personal opinion. However this list is
a developer's list and the opinions I (subjectively) see here seem to miss
the more general user perspective. 


Michael D Godfrey-2 wrote:
> 
> many Matlab users set by default -nodesktop. 
does not mean all Matlab users and not all the time. For a development I
prefer to work within an IDE. For 'production' runs I also sometimes set
-nodesktop.  The fact that GUI is the "most frequent feature request" means
the majority of users need it. You can't argue with stats. 
As for the start times - well, it's Java. Since the development here seems
to be based on Qt - it should be naturally faster. 


Michael D Godfrey-2 wrote:
> 
> It appears that the Octave GUI is attempting to meet  a fairly wide range
> of preferences.
This is good in general, but I'll stick to my guns - start simple. The first
release should be functional and usable. Not necessarily perfect or 'better
than Matlab'. 
For me (and here I again express strictly personal view) it seems the
time-till-first-release is most important. It will show that this project is
serious and not just academic discussion on what features should or should
not be in a GUI.
That said, I do understand that "functional and usable" is a wide and
arguable definition.


Michael D Godfrey-2 wrote:
> 
> It is not possible to make everyone feel that their 
> particular preferences have been given priority over everyone else.  
No and I do not ask it for myself. If you got this impression - sorry, this
was not my intention.
What I am trying to convey is following:
A. discussion of whether the users need a GUI is counter productive. It is a
waste of everybody's time given the fact that the GUI is the most frequent
feature request, at least according to the first poster. 
B. I do understand that Windows OS is very different and poses challenges,
but cutting it off because some   people just do not like it - sounds
childish/not serious/stuck up? and definitely counter productive given the
waste numbers of WinOS users.
C. Instead of aiming too high for all the feature that 'must' be in such an
IDE, the devs should get a clear picture of what is the bare acceptable
minimum for the first release. 
Since the latter one is again a matter of personal views, I propose that
everyone who cares, list here his/her personal minimal set of features.
Developers then will decide on the final set. 

The 'three-panels' setup (Editor, Command window and Workspace viewer) is my
personal visual minimum. Whether the panels should seat in a one central
window - is indeed a matter of personal preferences, but I believe that
making the panels dockable is not a big problem from the implementation
point of view.

To summarize (my personal minimum for the 1st release):

A resizable main window which is basically the command window with menus

dockable: Editor, Workspace viewer, Command history

optional dockable: Current dir

non-dockable: doc/manual, graphics/plot window(s)

Editor features: 
   'evaluate selection' (Matlab's F9)
   integrated debugger (break points, step, step in, step out...)

Everything else I'll consider as a bonus. 

@Devs: please someone set a reasonable time limit for this phase. Entries
that'll appear afterwards should be considered for the next release.

Victor

--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Release-plans-for-the-GUI-tp3790414p3855266.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.